Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/002060] (1 of 4) [CW-14159/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14159/2018
Suresh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 56 Years, Village Post Hariyadhana, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur
Through Its General Manager.
2. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Jodhpur.
3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Sharma for
Dr. Harish Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/01/2023
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy is no more res integra as it has been decided by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 in
Kulvindra Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &
Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15367/2022.
"1. By way of present writ petitions, petitioners have
challenged penalty imposed upon them which has been
levied on the ground that the revenue generated by the
petitioners (conductors) is comparatively lesser than the
revenue generated by other conductors.
(Downloaded on 27/01/2023 at 11:37:21 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002060] (2 of 4) [CW-14159/2018]
2. Mr. Shardul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
relied upon judgment dated 18.07.2013, passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2941/2010 (Leela Dhar Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation) and submitted that the controversy
involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment
in the case of Leela Dhar (supra).
3. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel for the
respondent- Corporation, on the other hand, submitted
that the penalty has been imposed as per the prevailing
standing order and the petitioners being employee of the
Corporation cannot challenge such order, unless the
standing order is challenged.
4. It is also asserted by learned counsel that the
standing order has been issued in order to ensure sufficient
revenue is generated and the same is in public interest.
5. In the case of Leela Dhar (supra), this Court has held
thus:-
"Indisputably, the petitioner was charge
sheeted for collecting less revenue while
discharging duty on various Bus schedules
during the period 1.4.02 to 28.2.05. The
charge sheet issued does not disclose the basis
for calculation of the average income. It is not
the case of the respondents that the petitioner
was apprised about the less revenue collection
during the aforesaid period at least at the end
of each year. In considered opinion of this
court, the petitioner was absolutely justified in
submitting that had he been apprised about the
collection of revenue below average earlier, he
would have explained the factual position
effectively. There is no allegation levelled
against the petitioner that though the
passengers load on the various routes while he
was discharging duties as per the Bus
schedules was more yet, he did not made
efforts for motivating the commuter public to
travel in the Corporation buses. In absence of
(Downloaded on 27/01/2023 at 11:37:21 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002060] (3 of 4) [CW-14159/2018]
any allegation regarding the lapses/negligence
on the part of the petitioner in generating the
revenue, he cannot be held liable for collecting
the revenue below average.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is
to be noticed that the petitioner had filed a
detailed reply to the charge sheet explaining
that why the allegations levelled against him do
not constitute 'misconduct' within the meaning
of clause 34 of the Standing Orders, 1963.
However, a perusal of the impugned order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority reveals
that the stand of the petitioner has simply not
been taken note of by the Disciplinary
Authority. The findings arrived at by the
Disciplinary Authority are not supported by
reasons. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary
Authority has merely recorded its ipse dixit
without considering the record of enquiry and
the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner. Suffice it to say that order impugned
passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non
speaking order and therefore, not sustainable
in the eyes of law."
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this
Court is of the view that the respondents have wrongly
inflicted penalty upon the petitioners. Generation of
revenue is dependent upon a series of factors for which,
the petitioners being conductors cannot be held solely
responsible.
7. Hence, following the law laid down in the case of
Leela Dhar (supra), the present petitions are also allowed.
The impugned orders in each of the writ petitions are
hereby quashed.
8. The stay applications also stand disposed of
accordingly."
The only objection taken by learned counsel for the
respondents is that the petitioner has approached this Court
(Downloaded on 27/01/2023 at 11:37:21 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002060] (4 of 4) [CW-14159/2018]
directly, without filing an appropriate appeal. The said objection is
not sustainable, as merely non-filing of an appeal, cannot become
a ground for taking any other view that had already taken by this
Court on the same set of facts.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned order No.77 dated 31.07.2018 passed by respondent
No.2-Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. All
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
91-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
